The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.4 Dub High Schl Master Plan �.s.Or CITY CLERK Gti ', File # LZ 0 '® III 111 19 — �. 82 ,24L--- 24Z/FOR, AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 20, 2005 SUBJECT: City of Dublin Draft Comment Letter on the Dublin High School Facilities Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Report Prepared by Melissa Morton, Public Works Director and Jeri Ram, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft City of Dublin Comment Letter 2. Project Description from Draft Dublin High School Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (full document available for review in the Community Development Department) 3. Diagrams from Draft Dublin High School Master Plan Environmental Impact Report 4. City letter to Dublin Unified School District dated September 27, 2005. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive staff report; and 2. Approve draft letter in concept and authorize Staff to send .1 the letter to Kim McNeely,Director of Facilities,Dublin Unified School District. • FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: On September 1, 2005, the City received a request for preliminary issues in response to a statutory Scoping Notice that was sent by the Dublin Unified School District(DUSD) on their proposed High School Master Plan. The City submitted preliminary comments on the Scoping Notice on September 27, 2005 (Attachment 4). At the present time the School is 165,557 square feet and has an enrollment of 1;300 students and 95 staff. The proposed Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Dublin High School Master Plan indicates that at build out in 2013, the High School would expand to accommodate 2,500 students and 166 staff. • Historically,however, the School has had a maximum enrollment of 2,000 students. To meet the ultimate demand of enrollment,DUSD is proposing a Master Plan that would include demolition of some COPY TO: In-House Distribution Page 1 of 3 ITEM NO. G:\PA#\2005\05-045 Dublin High School Master Plan\ccsrcommentsl2-20-05.doc Q, of the existing facilities,reconstruction and modernization of other buildings and construction of new buildings. The Master Plan would be implemented in five major phases over the 8 year period and would at the conclusion provide for a 292,658 square foot High School. The construction would include 210,454 square feet of new facilities; 68,070 square feet of renovated facilities; and 83,353 square feet of existing facilities would be demolished. In addition, some of the outdoor recreational facilities would be reconfigured (Attachment 3). • On November 9, 2005,the City received a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the proposed Dublin High Master Plan. The Notice indicated that comments must be received by 5:00 P.M., December 23, 2005. A draft City comment letter on the DEW (Attachment 1) has been prepared by City Staff. A brief summary of the comments are as follows: Circulation Issues: • City of Dublin Staff has met several times with DUSD Staff while the proposed DEIR was under preparation. In addition, the City's Traffic Engineer has worked closely with the District's Traffic Consultant,providing information and expertise. Most of the proposed City comments on the (DEW) for this project were made on the Traffic and Circulation section of the report(Attachment 1). These comments covered traffic and parking related issues including project traffic impacts at adjacent intersections,neighborhood impacts along Brighton Drive, and school parking. The proposed City comment letter describes in detail all of the concerns that City Staff have regarding these issues. The letter requests that the level of service analysis at adjacent signalized intersections be updated to incorporate more recent and better calibrated traffic forecasts in downtown Dublin. Based on such an updated analysis, the final EIR for the proposed project should identify proper traffic impacts on nearby signalized intersections and discuss appropriate mitigation • measures. For non-signalized intersections that were included in the level of service analysis for the project, the , DEW found that the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive would be significantly impacted by the project at buildout and should be signalized by Year 2025 to mitigate this impact. City Staff feels that this mitigation should be implemented prior to Year 2012 when the project construction is substantially completed based on project traffic impacts at this intersection under interim Year 2012 conditions. A detailed discussion on this issue is documented in the draft City comment letter. In regard to student parking, this is a critical issue because of potential parking spillover impacts onto adjacent residential streets resulting from inadequate student parking supply on the school site. A detailed discussion on school parking is presented below. School Parking: The traffic consultant for the DEW conducted a parking occupancy survey for Dublin High School in October 2005. They found that up to 251 vehicles are driven by students every morning and parked at the school, including 198 vehicles parked in the student lot and up to 53 vehicles parked on the adjacent streets (e.g.,Brighton Drive, Callan Street and Burnham Way). The existing student lot where students with parking permits are allowed to park consists of 218 spaces, resulting in a parking deficit of approximately 33 spaces (i.e., 251 —218 = 33). The current school enrollment is approximately 1,300 students. When the school is expanded to accommodate 2,500 students, City Staff estimates that the Page 2 of 3 number of student-driven vehicles to the school could rise to 483 vehicles based on a straight-line interpolation_ The project proposes an addition of 355 parking spaces to the site with Master Plan buildout. The addition of 355 parking spaces to the existing 352 spaces would yield a total of 707 spaces at the project site. The 707 spaces would include 390 spaces in the student lot (off Brighton Drive) and 317 spaces in the staff lot (off Village Parkway). With the planned High School expansion to include 166 employees on the school staff who would park their vehic]es in the staff Jot, as many as 516 spaces of the proposed 707 spaces could be made available for student parking, including 390 spaces in the student lot and 126 spaces in the staff lot. The 516 spaces would be sufficient to accommodate parking for the projected 483 vehicles driven by students at buildout. The DEJR does not explicitly specify that the District intends to a110w students to park in a portion of the staff lot using available parking spaces as described above. Unless the District uses the expanded staff lot for shared staff/student parking to accommodate stodent parking demand, the proposed project will have a defiçient parking supply for students. Therefore, City Staff recommends that the District allow students to park in a portion of the staff lot, as indicated above, in order to provide adequate parking supply for students. Moreover, City Staff reconunends that parking permits issued to students to park their vehicles in the school lots be "Lot-Specific" [e.g., Lot A (student lot) and Lot B (staff lot)] so as to maximize the utilization and effectiveness of the school's parking facilities. This will ensure that there is adequate on- site parking supply to control parking spillover impacts on adjacent residential streets. Poor parking circulation has been cited in the DEIR as one reason that the current student lot may not be fLl11y utilized. City Staff is requesting the District to indicate how the future parking lot configurations can be improved to discourage off-site parking. In addition, Staff is suggesting that the school educate students with parking permits to park their vehicles in the school's parking lots, rather than parking on neighboring streets for convenience purposes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: I) Receive Staff Report; 2) Approve the draft letter in concept and authorize Staff to send the letter to Kim MeNeely, Director of Facilities, Dublin Unified School District. Page 3 of 3 \9:>2q CITY OF DUBLIN --~,..'"'' 1 00 Cìvìc Plaza, Dublin, California 94b68 Wcbsite: http://www.cì.dublin¡ca.us December 21, 2005 Kim MeNeely, Director of Facilities Dublin Unified High School 7471 Larkdale A venue Dublin, CA 94568 ReI Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Dublin High School Master Plan Dear Ms. MeNeely: Please find below the City of Dublin comments on the drati Environmental Impact Report for the Dublin High School Master Plan. The City of Dublin appreciates the District's early consultation with the City of Dublin to help identify potential issues that may arise in the build out of the High School. In addition, the District has consulted the City while the various studies were undertaken as part of the preparation the draft Environmental Impact Report. The City of Dublin's comments are as follows: Traffic and Circulation 1. In its scoping letter, the City requested that the Amador Valley Boulevard segment between Doughertv Road and Brighton Drive be analyzed because this segment would be impacted by school trips originating in Eastern DubJin. This request was also forwarded to the traffic consultant in May 2005. The DEIR evaluated the roadway segment of Amador Valley Boulevard between Village Parkway and Brighton Drive as part of the traffic analysis, but it did not analyze the segment between Dougherty Road and Brighton Drive. It was not necessary to analyze Project traffic impacts on Amador Valley Boulevard between Village Parkway and Brighton Drive because this roadway segment is not on the main travel routes to the school and would be minimally impacted by the Project. This is evident by the traffic analysis findings as depicted in Figure 3.1-9 and Tables 3.1-7, 3.1-9 and 3.1-11 of the DEIR, showing no Project trips traveling on this roadway segment during the AM peak hour and uùnimal daily trips. In contrast, Project trips are expected to travel along Amador Valley Boulevard between Dougherty Road and Brighton Drive to access the school site from Eastern Dub1in as indicated in the DEIR. Therefore, the City is requesting again that the roadway segment of Amador Valley Boulevard between Doughcrty Road and Brighton Drive be analyzed for Project traffic impacts. Aroa Code (925) . City Manager 833-6650 . City Council 833~6650 . Personnel 833-660$ . Economic Development 833-6650 Finance 833m6640 . Public Works/EngJnaering 833·6630 . Parks & Community Services 833-6645 . Police 833·6670 Planning/Code EnfofGeman1833y6610 . ~U¡lding Inspection 833-6620 . Fire pre'l~rftWiIENT , PnntedonReoycledPaper ~~I~~~IYI \"'2--20-05 Kim McNeely, Director of Facilities Dublin Unified High School December 21,2005 Page 20f9 d. u6~Cf 2. Traffic analysis scenarios 4 and 5 listed on page 3.1-1 of the DEIR are referred to throughout the document as "Year 2025 Baseline Conditions" and "Year 2025 Baseline pIus Project Conditions," respectively. The characterization of these two scenarios as "Baseline" conditions is incorrect. The "Baseline" designation should be replaced with "Buildout" as these scenarios represent the buildout of the General Plans jn the City of Dublin and surrounding communities. In addition, the document occasionally refers to traffic analysis scenarios 2 and 3 as, respectively, "Year 2012 Baseline Conditions" and "Year 2012 Baseline plus Project Conditions." (See page 3.1-1 and 3.1-15.) Elsewhere, these scenarios are correctly referred to as "Interim Year 2012 Conditions" and "Interim Year 2012 plus Project Conditions." The latter descriptions of the analyses should be used throughout the DEIR. 3. On page 3.1-3 of the DEIR, Village Parkway is described incorrectly as a two-lane roadway. The correct number of lanes on this roadway is four (two lanes in each direction). 4. We understand that the DEIR uses the Year 2012 for the interim analysis because the Project will likely be substantially completed at that point. The DEIR should explain why Year 2012 was used as an interim baseline year for the traffic analysis. Furthermore, the DEIR should explain that the CCT A Model does not provide traffic forecasts for Year 2012, but rather allows the user to run the model in increments of five years up to Year 2025. The DEIR should indicate that the 2015 CCTA Model was used in the traffic analysis as a conservative approximation of Interim Year 2012 traffic conditions within the Project area. 5. On page 3.1-7, the DEIR jn describing the LOS methodology adopted by the CCTA for signalized intersections refers to "critical movement for each phase of traffic" and summing "the critical volume-to-capacity ratio by phase to determine the intersection voJume-to-eapacity ratio." The word "phase" in this discussion is confusing and technically inaccurate. It should be replaced with the word "annroach" to indicate "critical movement for each approach of the intersection" and summing "the critical volume-to-capaeity ratio by approach to determine the intersection volume-to- capacity ratio." 6. Table 3.1-1 of the DEIR should be revised to accurately reflect the LOS criteria used for the traffic analysis, by deleting the "Maximum Sum of Critical Volumes" portion of the table. This information is irrelevant and misleading since the LOS anaIysis in the DEIR does not rely on summing the critical movement volumes to determine the intersection LOS. 7. On page 3.1-13 of the DEIR, the subheading "Roadway Segments" should be replaced with the subheading "Streets" to be consistent with the City's General Plan Kim McNeely, Director of Facilities Dublin Unified High School December 21,2005 Page 3 of9 300 ::¡g concerning Standards of Significance. In addition, the following text should be added at the beginning of the "Streets" subsection on page 3.1~13 of the DEIR: "For streets defined as Routes of Regi onal Significance, the General Plan requires the City to make a good faith effort to maintain Level of Service (LOS) D on arterial segments of, and at the intersections of, routes of regional significance (Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road, Tassajara Road and San Ramon Road) or implement transportation improvements or other measures to improve the level of service. If such improvements are not possible or sufficient, and the Tri- Valley Transportation Council cannot resolve the matter, the City may modify the level of service standard assuming other jurisdictions are not physically impacted (General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways Guiding Policy E). For streets that are not defined as Routes of Regional Significance, the General Plan requires the City to phase development and road improvements so that the operating Level of Service for intersections in Dublin shall not be worse than LOS D (General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways Guiding Policy F)." 8. The City has recently updated the list of freeway and interchange improvements a]ong 1-580 that are included in the CCTA Model. Consistent with these updates, the lists offreeway and interchange improvements on pages 3.1-16-3.1-17 and 3.1-21 of the DEIR should be aroended to delete the following text: "5. Improvements to 1-580 interchanges in Livermore contemplated in the City of Livermore General Plan at N. Livermore Avenue, N. First Street, Vasco Road and GreenviIle Road." In addition, listed item 6 should be revised to read as follows: "6. Improvement of 1-580 between Santa Rita RoadfTassajara Road and Vasco Road to include four mixed flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction, and improvement of 1-580 between Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road and Isabel Avenue to include one auxiliary lane in each direction." The CCT A Model used for the traffic analysis in the DEIR includes the appropriate freeway and interchange improvements along 1-580, including the above updates, and no changes to the model's network assumptions are required. 9. On page 3.1-17 of the DEIR, under Interim Year 2012 plus Project Conditions, the second sentence states that "The District forecasts a student population of 300 Kim McNeely, Director of FaciJities Dublin Unified High School December 21,2005 Page 4 of 9 '-I 06 -;;),9 students by the year 2012 (DUSD 2005)." In order to avoid any confusion regarding the projected number of enrolled students by 2012, the DEIR should clarify that the 300 students represent the forecasted growth in student population at Dublin High School by 2012. It would also be useful to include in the discussion of the Project Characteristics at page 3.1-13 some additional detail about the High School's ex.isting student population and the District's student population estimates for 2012 and through 2025. 10. In general, the City's traffic engineer believes that the 2012 and 2025 turning movement forecasts at the signalized study intersections in the DEIR appear to be too high and unrealistic when compared to existing counts or previous traffic forecasts in downtown Dublin. This is especially true at the intersections of Village Parkway/Amador Valley Boulevard, Amador Valley BoulevardIDougherty Road, Village ParkwaylDublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive/Dublin Boulevard, where unacceptable levels of service (E or F) were reported under 2012 and 2025 conditions during the AM peak hour. These forecasts were based on model runs that were nO! fully calibrated for the area adjacent to the school site, hence resulting in artificially deteriorated levels of service due to overstated turning volume forecasts. Therefore, the validity of the Project traffic impacts and mitigation measures listed in the DEIR for the above intersections is questionable due to the inadequate traffic forecasts used for the Year 2012 and 2025 conditions. The level of service analysis at the signalized study intersections should be rerun for aIJ future scenarios using the attached turning movement forecasts that have been provided by the City's traffic engineer (see attached TJKM Figures I to 6). These forecasts were reccntly obtained from a fully calibmted model for the local area around the school site. Project traffic impacts at the signalized study intersections should be updated accordingly and the appropriate mitigation measures should be identified. 11. Future lane geometries depicted in Figure 3.1-7 of the DElR are inaccurate at three intersections: Dublin BoulevardIDougherty Road, Scarlett DrivelDublin Boulevard and Scarlett DrivelDougherty Road. The lane geometries used in the Level of Service Calculation Worksheets included in the Technical Appendix for these intersections are correct. Figure 3.1-7 should be corrected to match the geometries used in the Worksheets. 12. The lane geometry assumed for the eastbound Amador Valley Boulevard approach at the Amador Valley BoulevardIDougherty Road intersection under the Year 2025 Alternative Buildout Conditions (with Camp Parks Development) scenarios includes one left turn lane, one through lane and one right turn lane. The lane geometry for this approach should be changed to include one left turn lane and one shared through/right turn lane based on projected turning movement volumes and physical characteristics at this intersection. This correction should be made on the LOS Calculation Worksheets and Figure 3.1-7 of the DElR. Kim McNeely, Director of Facilities Dublin Unified High School December 21,2005 Page 5 of9 56ò;)Q 13_ The Level of Service Calculation Worksheets included in the Technical Appendix for "Year 2012 Baseline Conditions" and "Year 2012 Baseline plus Project Conditions" are listed in reverse order under the wrong coversheets. 14. In the roadway segment analyses, the DEIR should explain how future Average Daily Traffic (AÐT) volumes were estimated starting from existing counts. 15. According to the DEIR, the ADT volume on Brighton Drive would increase from 4,553 vehicles under existing conditions to 6,010 vehicJes under Interim Year 2012 conditions (without Project), an increase of 1,457 vehicles. How could such an increase in daiJy trips possibly occur on this residential street which serves primarily local trips? The ADT on this street is expected to remain relatively unchanged without Project trips and, hence, future ADT projections listed in the DEIR for Brighton Drive should be corrected accordingly. 16. On page 3.1~19, the DEIR concludes that the Project is not considered to create a significant impact at the Brighton Drivel Amador Valley Boulevard intersection in Year 2012 because this intersection would not meet the MUTCD Peak Hour Warrant for the installation of a traffic signal with the addition of Project trips. This conclusion is unsupported since meeting the peak hour signal warrant is not one of the standards of significance identified in the DEIR for measuring traffic impacts at intersections. (p. 3.1-13.) The intersection standard in the DEIR should be augmented to include identification of a significant impact if existing unacceptable levels of service degrade to a more unaceeptab1e level of service, e.g., from LOS E to LOS F. This augmented standard is consistent with item XV.a) of the Appendix G checklist in the CEQA Guidelines regarding traffic increases that are "substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity". According to the DEIR analysis, the AM peak hour turning movement from Brighton Drive onto Amador VaHey Boulevard is expected to deteriorate from WS E to LOS F with the addition of the Project in 2012. Based on the change in intersection operation, this change should be identified as a significant impact, particularly under the local physical circumstances. Brighton Drive dead-ends at Amador Valley Boulevard. Traffic on Brighton Drive is controlled by a stop-sign; traffic on Amador VaHey Boulevard is not. Traffic on Brighton Drive must wait for a gap in the cross traffic to make a right or left turn; thus, deterioration to LOS F at the Brighton Drive approach would substantially increase unacceptable traffic backups and delays on this approach during the AM peak hour. In addition, this intersection is heavily used by school children who cross this intersection in the morning on the way to Frederiksen School and Wells Middle School. Children headed from the east to Frederiksen School cross Brighton Drive at Amador VaHey Boulevard en-route to Burton Street and Tamarack Drive to access this school. Children hcaded from the east to Wells Kim McNeely, Director of Facilities Dublin Unified High School December 21, 200S Page 6 of 9 Úi 6ð ;;;;J, C} Middle School cross Brighton Drive at Amador Vaney Boulevard before crossing again the latter street at Penn Drive to access this school. With the increased congestion on Brighton Drive, traffic safety could create an additional impact if drivers make more aggressive attempts to turn onto Amador Valley Boulevard when children are crossing the intersection. This circumstance could also result in vehicle collisions. This intersection is a typical example of a two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) intersection. In discussing capacity and level of service of such intersections, the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) states that "LOS F occurs when there are not enough gaps of suitable size to allow a minor-street demand to safely cross through traffic on the major street. This is typically evident from extremely long control delays experienced by minor-street traffic and by queuing on the minor approaches." The 2000 HCM goes on to say that "LOS F may also appear in the form of drivers on the minor street selecting smaner than usual gaps. In such cases, safety may be a problem, and some disruption to the major traffic stream may result." Such traffic safety impacts associated with LOS F on stop-controlled minor-streets are even more significant if school children are present at the intersection, as is the case with the Brighton Drive/Amador Valley Boulevard intersection. Therefore, the DEIR should recognize that the Project would have a significant impact at the intersection of Brighton Drive/Amador Valley Boulevard by Year 2012 based on decreased intersection operations and related traffic safety impacts associated with the Brighton Drive approach deteriorating from LOS E to LOS F with the addition of Project trips. As such, the DEIR should modify Impact 3.1.1 to add that the impact at this intersection would also occur under Interim Year 2012 plus Project Conditions. Mitigation Measure 3.1.1 should also be modified to add the following requirements: . A traffic signal should be installed prior to Year 2012 to mitigate Project impacts at the Brighton Drive/Amador Vaney Boulevard intersection. The Project sponsor should obtain AM peak hour turning movement counts at this intersection on an annual basis and conduct LOS analysis to determine when Project trips will trigger the need for the traffic signal (e.g., prior to Year 2012) as a result of the Brighton Drive approach deteriorating to LOS F. . The traffic signal installation should be fully funded by the Project sponsor and built by the City as a Capita] Improvement Program (ClP) project. 17. In its seoping Jetter, the City suggested the School District analyze potential measures to reduce Projcct traffic impacts on Brigbton Drive and VilJage Parkway during the AM peak hour. Without such an analysis, it is impossible to determine whether feasible mitigation to the conditions at the Brighton Drive/Amador Vaney Boulevard Kim McNeely, Director ofPaeilities Dublin Unified High School December 21,2005 Page 7 of 9 7 ðb?.<1 intersection and the Amador Valley Boulevard/Village Parkway intersection can be developed. 18. On page 3.1-26 of the DEIR, the third sentence of the first paragraph indicates that the Camp Parks development would be bounded by Arnold Road to the north. This information should be corrected to reflect that this development would be bounded by Arnold Road to tbe east, not to the north. 19. The land use assumptions listed on page 3.1-26 of the DEIR for the potential Camp Parks development are inaccurate. They should be corrected to reflect "260 single family homes, 1,040 multi-famHy dwellings, 300,000 square feet of retail development, 248,000 square feet of general office, and other uses." These are the correct land uses as included in the CCT A Model with the Camp Parks development scenario. In addition, the DEIR offers no explanation as to why a Year 2025 scenario was analyzed that incJuded the Camp Parks development. The DEIR should explajn that, even though the Camp Parks development is not included as part the City's General Plan and a development proposal has not yet been filed with the City, it is reasonably foreseeable that this development would occur by Year 2025 affecting travel pattems in the area. The Camp Parks development would include constructing a second east-west roadway connector between Eastern Dublin and Dougherty Road, besides Dublin Boulevard. As such, it was important to analyze Year 2025 Conditions with the Camp Parks development in place as an alternative Year 2025 scenario because of the potential roadway network improvements associated with this development affecting traffic patterns in the area. 20. The DEIR at page 3.1-29 indicates that the Project would improve the on,site parking supply from 0.27 to 0.28 spaces per student. The ITE parking demand rate cited in the DEIR is 0.26 vehicles per student, which accounts for total parking demand generated by students and school staff combined. The DEIR appears to imply that the staff lot wi!] be shared by both staff and students when discussing future parking demands, without specifically mentioning that. The DEIR indicates that the Project wi!] provide a parking ratio of 0.28 spaces per student. This is based on 707 spaces and 2,500 students at buildout. The report also indicates that there will be 166 spaces needed for staff at buildout, which would potentiaIJy create a parking supply of 5]6 spaces for student parking, including 390 spaces in the student lot and 126 non-visitor spaces in the staff lot. The DEIR should explicitlv specify that the District intends to allow students to park in a portion of the staff lot using available non-visitor spaces as described above. Unless the District uses the expanded staff lot for shared staff/student parking to accommodate student parking demand, the proposed Project will have a deficient student parking supply. Kim McNeely, Director of Facilities Dublin Unified High School December 21,2005 Page 8 of9 "S Db ~ g Moreover, the City recommends that parking peDnits issued to students to park their vehicles in either lot be "Lot-Specific" [e.g., Lot A (student lot) and Lot B (staff lot)] so as to maximize the utilization and effectiveness of the school's parking facilities. This will ensure that there is adequate on-site parking to control parking spillover impacts on adjacent residential streets. Poor parking circulation has been cited as one reason that the current student lot may not be fully utilized. There should be an indication of how the future parking lot configurations can be improved to discourage off-site parking. In addition, the school should educate students with parking permits to park their vehicles in the on-site parking lots, rather than parking on neighboring streets for convenience purposes. 21. Impacts to the adjoining residential neighborhood on Brighton Drive in teDnS of increased traffic, access and safety are generally not discussed. Traffic due to the Project on Brighton Drive will add 790 daily trips to a street that currently carries approximately 4,500 daiJy trips, a 17% increase. The DEIR should include a section discussing impacts to the neighborhood and possible measures to reduce such impacts. Noise 1. Page 2.2-8 - increase in noise exposure from the expanded athletic field complex (less than 1 dBA) seems low. Specifieal1y the impacts that a new stadium and increased student population would have on the existing residents on Langmuir Lane should be analyzed. 2. Mitigation Measure 3.3.3 specifies certain work hour restrictions for extreme noise- generating activities. This mitigation measure should also specify the general working hours for all construction activities due their potential impacts on adjacent residences and school buiJdings. 3. The text of the report indicates that the noise level at the front door of residences on Brighton Drive will increase from 61db to 63 db. This level is above the City's General Plan level of 60db for residences unless mitigation measures are provided. The report should add mitigation measures for post-construction noise. Our engineering Staff will be happy to help you in addressing this issue. Hydrology and Water Quality 1. Mitigation Measure 3.5.2b should be modified to reql1ire that the existing trash enclosure be modified to drain surface rllnoff away from the dumpster, to provide a connection to the sani tary sewer for the dumpster pad, and to provide a roof. Kim McNeely, Director of Facilities Dublin Unified High School December 21,2005 Page 9 of9 9 ðh ;;J, 9 2. Also, a mitigation measure should be added to install trash receptacles along the Brighton Drive frontage of the school. There are currently no receptacles in place. This may be contributing to the litter problem (and ultimately a water quality problem as litter goes down the drains). 3. Impact 3.5.1 - the difference in Composite Runoff Coefficient should be 4%, not the stated 3%. Thank your for your attention to the items listed in this comment letter. Should you need clarification on any of the comments in this letter, please contact Melissa Morton, Public Works Director at 925-833-6630. Sincerely, Richard C. Ambrose City Manager 10 0è; :;),O Intersection #1 Intel'"Mt:tlon #2 In1.f'Hction '3 VUtage ParkwayJDiWona Dr. Village ParkWevlBrlghton Dr. Village ParkwaylTamarack Dr. . ,,§. .... N 0>", 1\...103 0 1\...57 "1.", i;Ot;O~N "'~ O>~~ +-12 ~~'" +-13 .-I, ,.J'~ f"109 .-I'~ f"110 18-'" ~t S4J ~tl"" 17J ~tl"" 108" _N 58- "'0'" 25- ~"'O ~~ 14S" "'$~ 94" "''''''' '" Intersection #4 Intersection #5 Intersection t6 Vil~ge PBrkwlily/AmBdor Valley Blvd. Vlllogo PorkwBY¡Publln Blvd. DUblin Blvd./Doughorty Rd. '" "''''''' I\... 113 ~...", 1\...187 ¡:¡~~ 1\...50 om", ~~~ "'...'" +-693 +-664 ~~N ~1,319 .-I'~ f"203 ,.J'~ f"73 .-I'~ f"250 368-'" ~tl"" 164-'" ~tl"" 172J ~tl"" 281- "''''''' 415- "''''N 1,186- ~8~ 142<1. mo", 169" '" 435 " ~ ~N_"'" ~ 'ntert£4;tCtkln #7 Intersection .8 .ntersectlon ",9 Dublin BlvdJ5eorlotl Ct. Doughorty Rd.lScorlotl Çt. Doughor\YRdJAmodor Valloy Blvd. '" m~ o~~ 1\...404 ~.[8 1\...410 - . ~_.... +- 1 .489 ~'" .-I'~ f"152 ,~ f"24 ,.J' 10J ~tl"" 19-'" tl"" 66J ~t 2.000- ;j~;:t; 11- ~~ 1- ....'" 11" 78" 616" ...'" "'- "'.... ~ n NORtH Not to S~",le City of Dublin Interim Year 2012 Conditions AM Peak Hour Volumes Figure 1 ~ 1!\7.001 T111-12/5105-PB II :;;.9 Il1ten/õectlon #1 Intersection #2 Intersection 13 Village Parkwa1/1:>"''VQna Dr. Village Parkway/Brighton Dr. \liII~gfl ParkwavnAmarack Dr. g '" 0 æ¡", 10:...103 10:...60 ..."'- .M wm~~ N~ "'~~ -12 ~~... _13 ~, ~·tl,.. "114 ~'\o. ,,110 18J ~t 54-:11 "1tl" 19-:11 "1tl" 113--.. N"- 58- "'~o 25- ~"'o "'''' 145--" "-~'" 94--" "''''''' N..,. "'~ '" Intersection #4 Intel'Sectkm #5 Intersection #6 VIllage Parkway/Amador Valm Blvd. VlIIOgO POr~woy/Dublln Blvd. Dublin Blvd./Doughorty Rd. "'_0 10:...113 N...... 10:...179 ",80 !LSD ¡:i:~ NOD ~(I'lln _693 "'~'" _664 ~~N -1,326 ~'\o. " 203 ~'\o. ,,73 ~'\o. " 250 403-:11 ~tl" 164J "1tl" 173-:11 "1tl" 281- ;¡¡¡¡rg 415- "''''N 1,188- '" ",," 142--" 169--" N 436'" ~~li ~ IntBr&l;Ictlon #7 Intêrsectlon .8 Intêr&l!IctÎon #9 Dublin Blvd./SCBr-IØtt Ct. Dougherty Rd./Scllrlen Ct. Dough'ertyRdJArnador Vi!llIey Blvd. '" O>~ "'''- 10:...420 No> 000> M.o> 10:...426 ~ . ~~"- _1,496 ~o> ~'\o. "152 ,\0. ,,24 ~, 10J ~tl" 19-:11 tl" 66-:11 ~t 2.000- ~::::;¡; 11- 0'" 1- "'''' 12'" 78'" ~-~ 617 '" ...... M"- ~ n NORTH Not \ú Sr.;¡'1h.~ City of Dublin Interim Year 2012 plus Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Volumes Figure 2 ~ 157-001,111 -':V$lO!;i- plB /';). ô ;) q Interseçtloo #1 IntAt'tI8ct1on #2 Interuectlon #3 Village Pørkway/Davona Dr. VUI¡:¡ge þl¡Il"kW'$lI/Brlgltton Dr. Village ParkwaylTamllraek Dr. ~ 0 '" <0 ¡;:'" \..-103 <0 \..-70 or "'. ..... ,....r-.;.f'-, "'~ "'~~ _12 ~~..,. _13 #, #,10.. ¡r124 #,10.. ¡r110 183 ..,t 543 ..,tl" 173 ..,tl" 95~ ~<O 83- ~"'.... 52- o~~ "'.... 174~ ;:fR~ 129~ "''''0 "'''' . <O~ Intersection #4 Int$r$l!tctlon #5 Interseetion #6 Village PBrkwlly/Amador Valley Blvd. VlII.a. P.rk...y/Dublln BII/d. Dublin BlI/d./DouUhorty Rd. <D "''''0 \..-113 "'....'" \.. 308 0]1;"'0 \..-100 "'0'" ....om 0.0 "'<0'" -592 "'~'" _738 ~"'''' -1,724 #,l,.. ..324 #,10.. ¡r73 #'l,.. ¡r276 3493 ..,tl" 1623 ..,tr'"' 1493 ,.,tl" 318- "'....<0 783- "'"'''' 1,197- ....~'" 142~ ...m"' 174-'" '" 606~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ Intersection #7 Intel"S~(lh #a Intersection #9 Dublin Blvd./Scarløtt ct. Dougherty Rd./Scarlett Ct. DoughertyRdJAmador Valley Blvd. 0'" o~ ...m 1\...421 m~ o~a ",,:0_ 1\...430 a . ~~m -1,689 "'~ "'''' #'l,.. ¡r131 ,10.. ¡r25 #, 103 ,.,tr'"' 193 tr'"' 983 ,.,t 2,115- ",...~ 11- 8"' 0- "'''' 9~ ...."'''' 78~ 751~ ~m ~. ........ ~ n NORTH Not to Scale City of Dublin Year 2025 Buildout Conditions AM Peak Hour Volumes Figure 3 ~ 1S 7-001 T111. 121S1DS.PB I ~ c'Ó29 Intersection #1 Intersection #2 IntersectlDn t3 Village Parkway/Davona Dr. VlUagè Parkway/Brighton' Dr. Vlllagè ParkwaylTamarac:k Dr. l:J ... '" "'"' 10:...103 0 10:...79 ..."'- "'.... «)(O"~ N_ "'-- +-12 --... +-13 ..I, ..1,1.. 1'151 ..1,1.. 1'110 18J ~t 54J ~tl"" 23J ~tl"" 117 " N_ 83- -"'''' 52- "'"'- OD <D 174 " ::gs~ 129 " .,MO N'" "'- Inters.ctlon "4 Interaectlon ItS Intersection "6 Village Parkway/Amador Valley Blvd. VillElioe Þarkway/Dublln Blvd. Dublin Blvd./Pougherty Rd, .... ¡:j~~ 10:...113 "'.,... 10:....424 ...¡g", 10:....100 ~ON <D .0 "'<DN +-596 -... +-738 _NM +-1,801 ..1,1.. 1'330 ..1,1.. 1'73 ..1,1.. 1'276 486J ~tl"" 164J ~tl"" 150J ~tl"" 318- ~;!:ß 788- N''''' 1,211- fg~gj 142" 174 " N 815 " _M (CJM_q -- Intersection 1#7 Intør-.!iIèt.:tlon #.8 In'b!lrsectlon #9 Dublin Blvd.lScarlett Ct. Dougherty Rd./Sc:arlétt Ct. DoughertyRd./Arnador Volley Blvd. ",N 10:....449 8[:1 D;;!; D__ C'.!.~ 10:...458 ~â --'" -1,765 N_ ..1,1.. 1'131 ,I.. 1'25 ..I, 10J ~tl"" 19J tl"" 98J ~t 2,127- "'...- 11- DOD 0- ...'" 12" ..."'''' 78" '" 778" ~~ - ii NORH'I Not to Scala City of Dublin Year 2025 Buildout plus Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Volumes Figure 4 ~ 157-001i'11-121~OI!-PB /4 úb ';} Cf Intersection .1 Intersection #2 InterGec:tlon #3 Villagø Parkway/Davona Dr. Village Parkwiily/Brighton Dr. Village Parkwav/TalT1$t'Øck Dr. '" "" $ .... ~¡:¡ 10:... 1 03 10:...69 ......, ""'" I"-~r--- ,,~ "'~~ +-12 ~~... +-13 #, #,\0. r127 #,\0. r113 183 "1t 573 "1tl" 193 "1tl" 94~ ~... 62- "''''''' 41- :¡S8)8 '" .... 192~ "''''0 134~ "'" ~"'~ ....- Intersection #4 Intersection _5 Imersectlon #6 VIllage Parkway/Amador Valley Blvd. \Image Parkway/Dublin Blvd. Dublin BlvdJDoughorty Rd. """"'" 10:...113 "",..."" 10:... 353 ~~-... IL 15 -"".... "'0'" """,'" +-S83 ",~... +-861 ~~~ +-1,253 #,\0. r350 #,\0. r73 #,\0. r714 3443 "1tl" 1623 "1tl" 1713 "1tl" 384- ;:r;g$ 868- ""''' 1.173 - "'0'" 164~ 170~ '" 427~ :¡S~.8. ~" ~~ Intersection #7 Intersection #8 Intersection #9 Dublin a~d.l&:a.rlll!ln Ct. DQugherty RdJSc:arlett CL DQUUhørtyRdJAmBdor Valley Blvd. "'''' '" "'... 10:...243 ""., "':j? 10:...1 o~ "'..." \'J~ 1L308 <D . "'~'" .....2,040 "''' +-5 #,\0. r135 ,\0. r51 #, r17 233 "1tr'" 193 ~~;,,> 133--'" "1tl" 2,461- "',...'" 11- 1- !S~~ 9~ ..."'''' 78~ 836~ f3;'! ~ '" City of Dublin Year 2025 Alternative Buildout Conditions (with Camp Parks Development) AM Peak Hour Volumes 157-001 T111- '2I~105-F>EI fI NORTH Not to Scale Figure ~ 5 /5" ôb '2.9 Intersection #1 Interseotlon !¥2 Intet'8ectlQn #3 Village ParkwayfDavoni!l Dr. Village Pilllrkway/Brlghton Dr. Village Parkway/Tamarac.k Pr. g¡ ., 8" "'-103 '" "'-78 ......- .", o:;.r-.-_O'J "'~ "'~~ __12 ~~... __13 .-1. .-1'~ ;157 .-1'~ ;113 18"" ~t 80"" "It!'" 2S"" ~tr"" 113,,- "'''' 62- "''''''' 41- o~o :<J~ 192"- "'....... 134 "- '" ° ~"'''' Il1te~lon #4 Intal'f¡Actlon #5 Intor.ootion #6 Vill~ge Parkwa}//Arnadoi" Valllil}l ahtd, Vlllag. Parkway/Dublin Blvd. Dublin Blvd.fDoughl;trty Rd. 0 ~~æ: "'-113 "'....., "'-463 ¡:J~.... "'- 15 "'do> "''''''' __587 .,-... __861 ~~~ __1,326 .-1'~ ;355 .-1'~ ;73 .-1'~ ;714 4783 ~tr"" 1643 ~tr"" 173"" "Itr"" 384- ...~o> 873- gj"'''' 1,188- "''''''' 164 "- ~~I.C} 170 "- 436 "- æ:~8. ~~ Int8rsectlon #7 Intersection _8 IntBr&èt:tlon #9 Dubl~ Blvd./Scarlétt Ct. Dougherty Rd.lScarl.rt CL DO\JghertyRd./Amadar' V'~IIBY alvd. ;3 '" ..,'" "'-243 ;g~- "'-1 ~...", 0'" "'-320 <D_'" __2,111 ("...r~ ..,'" __5 .-1'~ ;135 .~ ;83 #. ,.17 233 ~tr"" 193 ~~;"" 1333 ~tr"" 2,473- "'.... '" 11- 1- ~~(¡;J 12"- ....,., 78"- 862"- ...-; :ß;! - '" n NORTH Not to SCBls at}' of D"blio . F;"", ~~ Year 2025 Alternative Buildout (with Camp Parks Development) 6 plus Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Volumes 1.s7-o01i"'-;:i!I~0!:5-F'ð · I · I · I I I I I I I I I I I I, I t :'êFIÁP'TER' .,' . " " . 1 )t.Q ~;;l9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT SPONSOR'S OBJECTIVES The Dublin Unified School District (District) proposes to expand the existing Dublin High School campus with the implementation of its approved facilities Master Plan. The Project spofisor1s objectives arc to: · Renovate the Dublin High School compus to meet modem ¡eaming standards and to expand facilities capacity to serve the educational needs as enrolhncnt increases. · To create an environment that encourages lifelong learning. · Upgrade cxi.ting facilitie. to meet current health and safety standards. · Act.. a respon.ible steward of public tax money allocated by the bond measure to efficiently ton.truet and improve properties and facilities within the di,trict. · To ensw:e that the tax rate needed to pay debt service will not cxceed $60 per $100,000 of a"c5Sed valuation of taxable property within thc di.trict. 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION The Project ,ite is Dublin High Schoollocatcd at 8151Village Parkway at the intorsection of Village Parkway and Brighton Drive in west Dublin. The Project .itc i. east of 1-680 and north of 1-580. The site i. bounded by Villag~ Parkway to the west, thc Dublin Swim Center to the north, San Ramon Creek to the east and Brighton Drive to the south. Figure 2.1 shows the Project location. 2.3 PROJECT SITE CHARACTERISTICS The Project site is the existing Dublin High School. The Project site comprises about 42 acres. The site contains 15 buildings housing the following lúgh school facilirieo: library; classroom.; admi!Usttarive offices; laboratories; computer labs, teacher workroom.s and offices, storage; restrooms; weight t.ooms; theater; cafeteria and kitchen; D"¡'¡¡, Hid> S,Ù"I MMkr Pbn DoýI P.mim¡,,,,,,w ¡_ fuþm ATTACHMENT 1-1 17 crb ;}.. q SOURCE: ŒM + Figure 2-1 Project and Regional Location Map I .< / g 2ð~':'~!Pri'" I I I I I gymna:Üum; boys! and)~Îtls' locker and shower rooms; special education; main clcctI.1cal room; and custodian room industrial technology. Table 2.1 presents a breakdown of facilities and s<luarc footage by building. Outdoor athletic facilities include a natural (urf football ficld; track (decomposed granite); eight tennis courts; eight basketball courts; two baseball fields, two softball fields and four volley ba¡¡ courts. The campus currently pro';'¡des 352 parking spaces in two parking lots. Figute 2-2 shows the existin!'; site plan. Table 2.2 ,hows existing parking facilities on campus. TABLE 2,1: EXISTING FACILITIES Building Facilities Square Feet I I I EE I F G H I I J L 1,2,3 RR I I I A Main Libriuy, Administutive and Student Activity Offices R Foreign Language/English CI~"tooms, Teacher Workroom artd Staff Room C Administtative Offices! Classroorn5, Laboratories, Storage and Tea<hcr Workrooms Math and Social Studies Classrooms Uass!ooms, Computer Labst Offices, Student Rcstrooms, M1.in Electrical Room ílnd Cusrodian Room Industrial Technology CI~SStOom5) Storage, Teacher Offices artd Wdght Room 19,425 20,051 23,042 19,038 9,997 9.566 8,209 12,135 9,653 29,082 1,999 2,880 ,¡gO 165,557 D E Theater Cafctc:ria, Kitchen, Offices) Music Cla.S$room5 and Storage Home Economics and Art Classrooms¡ Teacher Office and Storage BOY6~ and Girls' Locker and Shower ROOfilS and Gymnasium Special EducatiOIl Classroom Classrooms Student Restrooms TOTAL 2.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The Proj"ct would demolish nine buildings, renovate four buildings and construct seven new buildings. Puking facilities would be expanded and pedestrian circulation would be improved with wid" circulation pathwaY" Buildings would &ont onto two large courtyards for student activities. New Iand'Caping woutd be planted and a six-foot high security fence installed at the campus. The existing track and football field would be upgrad"d. The football field is currently light"d; and the existing lighting would be upgraded. No other athletic facilities would be lighted. I I I I 2-3 D/(b/ir¡ HI¡þ School MlHUr Phil Dmft EmJÎrollfJJtlll4lmpat:1 &"M't /q {6 ;)..q I I 1 I I ~ o ~In~t Architectu", and 1'1""'""& SOURCE, AEDIS + Figure 2·2 Existing Site Plan I .,'.... "')0 ,~"' ", .;;7" /' 0b "~I,. ; . 2. Pnfj#'tÐUffipti(l!/. I TABLE 2.2: EXISTING AND FUTURE PARKING FACILITIES I Parking Facilities Existing Parking Spaces Future: Parking Spaces I Student Lot (Bri8hroD Drive) Regular Handicap Handicap Van Staff Lot (VìD~1I" Parkway) Regular Visitor Handicap Ihndkap Van 214 4 380 8 2 I I TOTAL 106 16 4 8 352 280 25 8 4 707 I I Project dITdopment would occur over five phases: Phase 1A - 2006; Phase 1 ß - Z007- 08; Phase 2- 2008-2010; Phase 3 - 2010-2012; and Phase 4- Z01Z·Z013. Phase 1A would include the construction of a new eight-lane all weather track, new field eVents area~ concession stands, restt'ooms, new blea.chers, new football fidd and new press boxJ all located in approximately the same location as they cuttently exist. A new entry pavilion may also be constructed. Phases IB - 4 would involve the demolition and renovation of exist.ing campus buildings and the construction of new buildings. With implementation of the Master Plan, approximately 210,454 square feet of new facilities would be constructed; 68,070 squarc fect of existing facilit.ies would be renovated; and 83,353 square feet of existing facilities would be demolished. Table 2.3 presem, the proposed facilities. Figure Z-3 shows the proposed conceptual site pJ..n at buildont and Table 2.2 shows future parking facilities. I I I I I I I II I I II 2.5 PROJECT APPROVAL PROCESS The District is the principal anthocity for the proposed Project and is the Lead Agency for the proposed Master pJ..n Project. 11>e District Board will hold two public hearings on the proposed Project before deciding whether to approve it. The District Board must certify the Pinal EIR before making a decision on the Project. The Project will also require approval by the following public agencies; · Divi,ion of the State Architect (DSA) for the buildings, handicap accessibility, fire and life safety. · Alameda Connty Fire Department for site acceSS and fire hydrants/water pressure. · Alameda County Zone 7 for water, sewer, stotoo drain and flood control. · San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for NPDES Gener"l Permit and StOtoo Water Pollntion PrITentton Plan (SWPPP). Dtiblin High School Ma.wr Pldn Drqfl EnvirofJflJUl1a/lmJwl &porl 2·5 , I , \..... ., a ....)/ tic'''', i -:À. """', " (.j z o g g: :z ~ §. (9. ~§ ~. .. 2 Cl.. i w ~ ~ 5 111 ~ Z .¡;¡ QC ;:¡. !II 1m1.,,~\: 0 tJ .~ ill ~U I I I I , ,I " . , ;~i "'::'¡':, " , ,\ :,:,:',.,,"'-¡ ":\>'1 "'",\),1 , , , ~" ' "Ii '11' ',:,:,;¡" ',·':"t , "I, ~ ':." ......'.::,:'.'.'..,...'.'.'.'..'. .::.:.;',:':,,;'::;!:: "'. ' :"'. .' i:U" '~'.. >. '. .. .. .. :/. .i'. .. ,~ '~ : :}',:: ~ .~·",::",~,1,~1 ·!'If)':'::'::-;'. +. ··"'.":"""':'."'1 ,'4) <,:'. ':"'''\ rh: :,,,~ ",\." ~ "f ....'o.i,',""J ...... ". '."'''''. -".:,,¡-,j 0""'" ':'¡;¡;''';..,;.~ p.:¡,,/:.'././ . ".>'i::::·::.,"':::'::;;,::':it1; :,' ":":'''-;:'':''<¡,,':/;it:., :" "":::~,, 'Ç}¡f ':,:.,"" \":"·"'1'" ., ¡¡; 1 i ; ~ g I ,;'. ;;;¡., ð1 ;),. 9 2. PtIJ)ttt '¡;&Tiplion I TABLE 2.3: PROPOSED FACIUTIES I F.cility rh... 1A 2006 Ph... 1B 2007·2008 Ph..e 2 Ph..e 3 Ph... 4 2008~2010 2010-2012 2012·2013 Total Square Fe.. I Demoh'tion 83,353 Stadium/T=k & Fidd X Building, t,2,3 ·2,880 Restrooms -480 Building B -20,051 Building C -23,042 Building H -9,653 Buililing D -19,038 Building F -8,209 Renovation 68,070 Stailium/Ttack & Fidd X Building A - LibraJ:y 19,425 Building E - . Consumer/Family 9,997 Building EE . Industrial Arts 9,566 Building;' Practice Gym 29,082 New C011StruCti01J. 210,454 Exp:ansion öf Student 355 new P""lcing LQt parking 5paçc.5 Math and Sdence 56,342 .sports Centt:r 32,076 Visual Arts 9,614 Humanities 74,640 . Consolidated Administration 7,070 Perfonning Arts 20,388 5tud<nt CaE.; 10,324 1'1 I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Dltblin High Sçhoo/Maskr Pl1J1 Dmft E"tfronmentaJ ImJm+I fuþtNi 2-7 SOURCE' ¡\EDlS ArdIi'ectur< ond fl~ d. 3 ö6 d.>·1 I I ~ I o soo ".....'e' I Î "~'I ,,:,', ~ I '\~" Î ,:"' L,'.,¡ ;\ t; ~ ..._08 I EXIT EIIITRJ\IIICE .'3 l + Figure 3.1-4 Existing Site Plan ATTACHMENT c-- <',. J :;J,L-(' .-. ') t":;:I..-, ,,", ' 1'1 y;.œo(, .j L· N ~ 500 On-Street Callan· Brighton to Burnham: 2 cars/15 spaces = 13% o 5o:.llI!i"FIteI I I , 'I I I I " I I !'i I On-Street Burnham. Frøderikson to Newport: 13 c:ars/32 spaces = 41% t ! On.Street Brighton - Langmuir to Callan: 'lJ cars/82 spøces '" 33 . I I SOURCE: AEDIS Ard\it.cture on<! p~ + Figure 3.1-5 Existing Parking Occupancies I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ ~ ..",",.- ~",,---- -- """~ll .--. :),5 ~'D 'J..p¡ ~~- .... ~~ ® dr1wW8)' PAAKING ""GI<1O" ""IV" . ~ I , :\ PARKING --- - u.N' ~ rchitectu.. oM PlamUng SOURCE, AEPIS A + Figure 3.1-6 Proposed Site Plan @fiJlì;', /''>-'"''~,'~ ~~@...~0~l) CITY OF DUBLIN - ~\, ~~ J//; Qiiil%:fr 100 Civic Plaz", Dublin, California 94558 ;) /Jl rJb "). O¡ ,.........__IM.",,'·'."· TRANsl\m'f!E]I)t9Y'~i.dublin.ca,us September 27,2005 Kim MeNeely, Director of Facilities Dublin Unified School District 7471 Larkdale Avenue Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Scoping under CEOA for Dublin High Seho01 Master Plan Dear Ms_ MeNeely: This letter is in response to your scoping request for environmental document for the Dublin High School Masterplan. The City of Dublin would like to submit the following preliminary issues that should be addressed in the environmental document and the design of the High School expansion: Dublin Police: Use the basic principles of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) in the design of the high school expansion, Basically these design techniques include: Natural surveillance: This design technique promotes the idea of self-policing. By designing an area where people engaged in nonnal daily activity have the ability to observe much of the space around them, a natural surveillance is created. This aids in the reduction of unwanted activity, Territoriality: People have the tendency to take more of an active interest in something they own or that which they are involved in. Therefore, living environments should be designed with clear delineation of private spaces. A healthy sense of ownership can also work as a catalyst for behavior that will challenge trespassers or undesired acts in their space. Provide and maintain amenities located in eonunon area. People will use them and will have a stake in maintaining them, Access control; Identify the positive or negative effect of a project's surrounding properties. Access eontr01 ftom surrounding properties can be done several ways. Area Code (925) . City Manager 833·6650 . City Council 833-6650 . Personnel 833-6605 . Economic Development 833·6650 Finance 833-6640 . Public Works/Engineering 833-6£HO . Parks & Community Services 833-6645 . Police 833·6670 Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 . Building Inspection 833·6620 . Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606 P,inted on Recycled Paper A IT AC H M EN T 1+ Kim McNeely, Director of Facilities Dublin Unified School District September 27,2005 Page 2 of 4 '), Î ¿rb 'd. q Premise Liability: The failure of the developer to consider adequate security and design features that reduce the opportunity for crime can lead to a variety of premise liability issues. Additionally, the expansion should plan for: · Traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, onto and within the site. Spil1-over into the residential area can create issues. o Adequate parking and spill-over needs to be calculated o Pedestrian safety into the site must be addressed o Traffic calming devices within the parking lots need to be considered · Lighting - after hours uses as well as security issues. · On campus security to include after hours. · Emergency responders accessibility to and within the site. · Additional School Resource Officers to handle the increase in this site's population. Dublin Fire Department: · The environmental document should include analysis regarding water supply and access. Dublin Communitv Development Department: · Provide analysis to ensure that setbacks of new buildings along residential streets are adequate and do not have an imposing presence on the neighborhood. · Demopstrate that the building design that fits in with the neighborhood. · Buffer locations that will have evening activities and lighting from the existing neighborhood. · Provide analysis that demonstrates tbat there is an adequate plan for student parking so that overflow into the neighborhood is minimized. · Provide analysis that demonstmtes that there is an. adequate plan for special event parking so that overflow into the neighborhood is minimized. · Provide analysis on any noise increases (including traffic noise) that would be attributable to the expansion. · Provide analysis on the air quality impacts as a result of the increase oftraffic on the school and nearby businesses and residents. Dublin Public Works Department Concerns; Hydrology and Water Quality Kim MeNeely, Director of Facilities Dublin Unified School District September 27,2005 Page 3 of4 ;I. g ð[; ?- c¡ · Provide analysis of the potential drainage impacts due to the increased impervious surface created by the building and parking Jot expansion. Existing and future drainage capacity should be calculated along with a discussion of potential downstream effects. · Water quality impacts should also be discussed along with potential clean water mitigation. Transportation / Circulation Note: Staff has previously made conunents on the initial scope of services proposed by Dublin High School's traffic consultant, Korve Engineering, to prepare the traffic impact study. The following is a sununary of eonunents made to date: Traffic Analysis · Include the intersection of Brighton Drive and Callan Street in the transportation study area. · The City uses the CCT A Planning methodology for signalized intersection LOS analysis on traffic impact studies. HCM 2000 Operations LOS can be used to supplement the CCT A LOS at specific intersections as necessary. · Proposed Scenarios for LOS Analysis o Existing Conditions o Year 2012 Baseline Conditions · Do not assume Scarlett Drive extension for this scenario o Year 2012 Baseline Conditions plus Project o Year 2025 BuiJdout Conditions o Year 2025 Buildout plus Project Conditions o Year 2025 Alternative Buildout Conditions (Camp Parks Development) o Year 2025 Alternative Buildout plus Project Conditions · Roadway Segment Analysis o Collect ADT counts on the following roadway segments and estimate AM peak hour and daily traffic volumes for the following future scenarios: · Brighton Drive, between Amador Valley Boulevard & Village Parkway · Amador Valley Boulevard, between Dougherty Road & Brighton Drive · Modeling Instructions for the High School Study o Review the Base model's destination assumptions for AM school trips from residential TAZ's in Dublin and refine the school trips O-D table as necessary, based on existing public/private schools in the DublinIPleasanton area. o Fix the existing land use database for the TAZ containing Arroyo Vista. Get the database corrections from MacKay & Somps. o For Year 2015/2025 Base models, add 300 multi-family units within Arroyo Vista. This may have already been done for the PM on the EDPO project. Kim McNeely, Director of Facilities Dublin Unified School District September 27, 2005 Page 4 of 4 -;fer (Tb d- 9 o For Year 2015/2015 Base models, add 114 multi-family residential units within Camp Parks (north of 5th Street). Assume the Dougherty RdI A VB intersection upgraded to include a fourth leg for access to Camp Parks, replacing the existing access at Dublin BlvdlDeMareus Blvd. o For Year 2025 Base Conditions with Camp Parks, use the "Variation of Alternative 5" option for Camp Parks and make sure all ofth.e above refmements are incorporated. Parking · The traffic impact study should include analysis and discussion regarding parking demand and supply. Comprehensive fieJd observation prior to analysis should be" conducted in order to gain full understanding of parking impacts. A parking management plan should be developed. · The study should also analyze what effect spillover parking will have on overall traffic capacity. Alternative MitigatÙ)n · Analyze potential alternate access points to the schoo] site that could mitigate traffic impacts on Brighton Drive and Village Parkway. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these initial eonunents. The City of Dublin, as a responsible agency under CEQA looks forward to working with Dublin Unified School District on the above issues of concern as the enviroIUllental document is prepared. Please feel free to call me and I would be happy to sit down with your consultant on any or all of these initial conunents. S(\" ~ J~trAICP Community Development Director